Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 844101
CVE-2012-3437 ImageMagick: Magick_png_malloc() size argument
Last modified: 2016-06-10 17:36:29 EDT
Tom Lane (email@example.com) found an issue in ImageMagick. Basically
CVE-2011-3026 deals with libpng memory allocation, limitations have been
added so that a bad PNG can't cause the system to allocate a lot of
memory causing a denial of service. However on further investigation of
ImageMagick Tom Lane found that PNG malloc function (Magick_png_malloc)
in turn calls AcquireMagickMemory with an improper size argument:
static png_voidp Magick_png_malloc(png_structp png_ptr,png_uint_32 size)
return((png_voidp) AcquireMagickMemory((size_t) size));
This is incorrect, the size argument should be declared png_alloc_size_t
according to 1.5, or png_size_t according to 1.2.
"As this function stands, it invisibly does the wrong thing for any request
over 4GB. On big-endian architectures it very possibly will do the wrong
thing even for requests less than that. So the reason why the hard-wired 4GB
limit prevents a core dump is that it masks the ABI mismatch here."
So basically we have memory allocations problems that can probably lead to a
denial of service.
Created ImageMagick tracking bugs for this issue
Affects: fedora-all [bug 844103]
Created attachment 600950 [details]
Patch for CVE-2012-3437 from ImageMagick SVN
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 600950 [details]
> Patch for CVE-2012-3437 from ImageMagick SVN
If I right understand it is reverse patch, forward should be http://trac.imagemagick.org/changeset/8733/ImageMagick/trunk/coders/png.c ?
ImageMagick-184.108.40.206-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ImageMagick-220.127.116.11-6.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
OpenShift does not grant sufficient resources to any customer application for it to hold a 4GB PNG file in the filesystem or malloc that much memory. I'm deferring Bug 844104 for a fixed package in RHEL 6.
Red Hat Product Security has rated this issue as having Low security impact. This issue is not currently planned to be addressed in future updates. For additional information, refer to the Issue Severity Classification: https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/.